Debated in Parliament on 2 Mar 2026.
Head K, the Ministry of Education (MOE). Mr Darryl David.
Chairman, Sir, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100".
Sir, we are living through a structural shift in how knowledge, skills and work intersect. Artificial intelligence (AI) is not merely another technological trend. It is reshaping industries, transforming organisational modes and models and redefining the skills needed to create value.
In Singapore, the transformation is evident across sectors. Firms are accelerating AI adoption and workers are seeking opportunities to reskill and adapt. Yet, recent industry discussions reported in The Straits Times highlight that many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are struggling with AI implementation, particularly in workforce training and identifying clear pathways forward. This underscores a critical point, that technological progress, if unsupported by structured education and training strategies, risks widening capability gaps rather than closing them.
The policy imperative is clear. To build a workforce capable of harnessing AI, AI literacy must be embedded across the entire learning life cycle, from the early years of schooling to continuing education and training (CET) for working adults.
Sir, in this AI-driven era, we must be deliberate about what constitutes foundation and what roles schools play in building it. AI literacy does not begin with sophisticated tools or computer programmes or complex algorithms. It begins much earlier, with students developing the ability to understand how systems work, recognise the limitations of automated output and exercise independent judgement.
In a world where generative AI can produce essays, code and analysis within seconds, the differentiator will not be access to technology. It will be the capacity to engage with these tools critically and to harness them to enhance meaningful work.
As AI tools become increasingly embedded in everyday life, foundational competencies must be sequenced more deliberately. AI literacy is cumulative. A student's ability to interrogate an AI system at graduation depends on habits of reasoning formed years earlier.
At the primary level, this means cultivating cognitive discipline – recognising patterns, following logical sequences, distinguishing correlation from causation and interpreting simple data. These are not merely technical proficiencies. They form the mental scaffolding required to understand how automated systems arrive at decisions.
But Sir, as students mature, abstraction and systems thinking can be introduced deliberately at the secondary level. Learners can examine how algorithms are designed, how datasets shape outputs and how human choices influence technological outcomes. And by pre-university, students should be capable of critical interrogation – evaluating AI-generated content, identifying limitations and weighing ethical trade-offs. This sequence reflects not only curricular design but developmental readiness. So, what we are talking about here is the scaffolding of AI learning, a scaffolding of AI education throughout the entire learning journey in schools.
Equally important is differentiation. Students with strong aptitude should have access to structured enrichment pathways – advanced computing modules with AI components, collaboration with AI Singapore on student projects, supervised industry mentorships and national AI challenge competitions.
Now, Sir, I understand that countries, such as Finland and South Korea, have implemented nationally structured AI curricula that integrate technical skills with ethics and civic awareness from an early age. Singapore should ensure that its approach is equally progressive, inclusive and systematic.
Sir, now on to the teaching, assessment and the core of education in the AI age. With this roadmap in place, the next challenge is how schools teach and assess in an AI-pervasive environment. Education in an AI age should not overload students with content but rethink pedagogy to emphasise reasoning, judgement and creativity. Now, these are competencies that AI cannot replicate.
Teachers should position AI as a tool to deepen learning, not as a shortcut. Lessons and projects could encourage students to question outputs, iterate solutions and critically evaluate information. Assessment practices must evolve accordingly. If AI tools are used in assignments, evaluation should thus measure meaningful application of concepts, the reasoning behind solutions and thought processes, rather than merely the final product.
Practical approaches could include reflective journals documenting AI use, oral defences to explain reasoning and process documentation, such as prompt logs or iterative drafts. Project-based assessments requiring real-time collaboration and problem-solving can further reveal student understanding and agency. Transparency, accountability and authentic demonstration of skills should guide assessment design rather than prohibit or limit AI use.
Equally important, Sir, is cultivating skills AI cannot replicate. Leadership, empathy, ethical judgement, collaboration, public speaking and resilience remain essential to holistic education. Teachers play an indispensable role in developing these capacities, ensuring students grow intellectually, socially and emotionally into confident, capable individuals. Education must remain about shaping thoughtful, adaptable citizens, not merely producing technically competent operators.
Sir, a word on teacher capacity and professional development. The success of an AI-ready curriculum depends on teachers. Even the best-designed lessons and assessments fall short if educators lack confidence in using AI tools, integrating them into learning or guiding responsible, ethical use. Strengthening teacher capacity is therefore essential.
Teachers in AI-augmented environments must act as facilitators, mentors and guides. They need proficiency not only in AI technologies but also in embedding them – how to embed them responsibly into lessons – designing assessments that measure critical thinking and supporting holistic development.
I urge MOE to implement tiered professional development programmes for teachers. Foundational training should cover AI tools and digital pedagogy while advanced modules focus on curriculum design, ethics and mentoring. And continuous professional development should track emerging AI trends to keep educators equipped.
And now, Sir, something on inclusive AI education for different learners' profile. As we advance AI literacy, we must support students with neurodiverse profiles, learning differences or disabilities. Tailored programmes and scaffolds are essential to ensure all learners can fully engage with AI learning environments.
Adaptive learning systems can personalise content to a student's pace, proficiency and cognitive profile, providing targeted support to address gaps and reinforce strengths.
Inclusion also depends on structured support within schools. Educators and learning specialists should be trained to use AI tools in ways to complement individual learning profiles. For example, analytics dashboards to identify early signs of struggle, designing customised practice pathways or integrating AI-assisted feedback to support self-paced learning.
The aim is not simply to adopt AI because it is available but to use it thoughtfully to respond to the diversity of learners in our classrooms. By embedding inclusive design principles in AI education, from platform design to classroom practice, we can ensure technology lifts all learners, not just those already advantaged. Inclusive AI education strengthens equity and affirms our commitment to leaving no student behind.
Sir, I would like to talk about AI in the classrooms right now to AI classrooms of the future. I think AI can be used, Sir, to really create learning environments in the hardware and the very structure of the classrooms to enhance how the classroom functions, to complement the ability of teachers to deliver in the classrooms. I had mentioned earlier, Sir, that core to our education experience, are our teachers, and may they always remain core, our physical teachers.
However, we can explore. How we can explore AI to perhaps enhance what a teacher is doing, create teacher avatars or one educator in the classroom, for example, that that person could be doing multiple things at the same time in different parts of the classroom. Now, this might sound like something from science fiction, but I believe that it is possible, Sir, to have a version, say, of a teacher Jeffrey in the classroom and then perhaps create AI avatars of teacher Jeffrey that could perhaps go and work in different groups in the classrooms concurrently and then come back again where teacher Jeffrey talks, say, to the rest of the classroom.
This would also address the issue of class sizes indirectly in a way. We have talked about class sizes and reducing class sizes for quite some time now over the past five, 10, even 15 years since I came into Parliament. And what we are talking about in class sizes is not so much reducing the class size per se but improving the ratio of the teacher and the student in the education experience. For example, if you have a class size of 20, one teacher is a ratio of 1:20. You can either reduce the class size to 10 or perhaps have two teachers come in. You have the same effect therefore of 1:10 ratio.
So, let us explore. Let us explore how we can perhaps use AI in a way that would be able to address the issue of class sizes in a creative manner, such that the end goal is not simply reducing the class size to smaller numbers in a class but enhancing and improving the teacher-student ratio.
Sir, I would like to move on now to creating an AI learning ecosystem for CET. Beyond the school classrooms, a robust AI education ecosystem requires infrastructure and support mechanisms to enable learning across life stages. While schools lay the foundation, working professionals must access structured pathways to upskill and remain relevant.
The Government could consider establishing a dedicated CET centre focused on AI and data literacy for adult learners. A dedicated AI CET centre could offer modular programmes ranging from foundational literacy to advanced applications in responsible AI governance, sector-specific problem solving and workplace integration. This would complement existing offerings from polytechnics and universities, such as Professional and Adult Continuing Education academies, which already provide professional courses in AI and data analytics.
Mr Chairman, artificial intelligence is reshaping the skills, work and society our young people will inherit. The foundation we lay today in schools through deliberate curriculum design, thoughtful pedagogy and inclusive learning will determine whether Singaporeans can navigate this transformation with confidence, creativity and responsibility. I urge MOE, the Government and other stakeholders to continue building a cohesive AI education ecosystem, one that nurtures curiosity, equips students for the future and ensures Singaporeans remain leaders and innovators in an increasingly digital, AI-augmented world.
*Question proposed.(proc text)]
Mr Darryl David.
Thank you, Sir, for indulging me again. Sir, at the 2024 National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), in its current form, would be discontinued and refreshed. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of Singapore's education system.
Since its inception in 1984, the GEP has played a crucial role in nurturing some of our most academically able students. Many alumni have gone on to contribute meaningfully across academia, Public Service and industry. The programme was, in many ways, a product of its time, a deliberate effort to ensure that academic excellence was not left to chance.
Yet, over the decades, legitimate questions emerged. The centralised model, which extracted students from their schools into smaller number of designated centres, inevitably reduced social mixing at a formative age. Whether or not elitism was intended, the programme also came to be perceived as accessible only to the affluent, especially with an increasing correlation between socio-economic status and academic results.
The new model, in which higher-ability pupils remain in their schools while attending after-school enrichment modules, reflects a broader shift in our educational philosophy, that excellence and inclusivity need not be mutually exclusive concepts. If implemented thoughtfully, this approach has the potential to stretch our brightest learners while strengthening, rather than fragmenting, our social fabric.
Unlike the Secondary School-Based Gifted Education (SBGE) model, which is concentrated in "branded" elite schools and mirrors many clustering tendencies of the old GEP, the revamped primary-level programme allows us to reimagine excellence in a more inclusive and socially integrated way.
Sir, I propose that after-school enrichment modules be situated in non-branded, non-elite schools rather than concentrated in a few established or prestigious primary schools. Such a design transforms these schools, many of which are located in heartland neighbourhoods, into local "centres of excellence", enabling students to stretch their abilities in environments that are both familiar, yet socially diverse.
Beyond academic growth, this approach exposes learners to peers from different socio-economic backgrounds, fostering empathy, resilience and social awareness, qualities as critical to a child's development as intellectual development and growth.
At the same time, neighbourhood schools can cultivate distinctive programmes and reputations for nurturing talent, creating a distributed ecosystem of excellence that benefits students, educators and the broader community.
Sir, on a practical note, high-ability students may need to attend different modules at different centres on different days, creating potential burdens in travel and scheduling. As such, I hope that thoughtful alignment of module locations and timetabling with students will ensure the programme remains accessible and manageable without placing undue strain on students, parents or caregivers, in terms of travelling from school to the centre.
The placement and operation of these centres is not merely administrative. It gives us the opportunity to stretch our brightest learners, broaden their perspectives and reinforce social cohesion, cultivating students who are academically capable and socially grounded.
Sir, the true value of the redesigned GEP lies not only in where students learn, but in what they experience. These after-school modules should not function as accelerated tuition, teaching more of the same content at a faster pace or providing direct advantage for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Instead, they should broaden and deepen engagement with subjects in ways the standard curriculum cannot, fostering curiosity, creativity and applied thinking. They should thus provide guided opportunities for students to apply their skills in meaningful contexts.
For example, students in advanced English modules could explore literature, journalism or creative writing, extending well beyond what is assessed in schools or national examinations. Mathematics modules might introduce basic financial literacy, logic puzzles, or problem-solving in everyday contexts. Science modules could offer hands-on experimentation, design-thinking challenges, or introductory environmental and sustainability projects suitable for nine- to 12-year-olds.
To complement these experiences, enrichment modules could include informal mentorship opportunities with educators, researchers, or even industry professionals who can guide students' exploration in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), the arts, or humanities. While not formalised as a teaching approach, these interactions allow students to gain early insight into real-world applications of knowledge, nurturing responsibility, resilience and ethical awareness alongside intellectual growth.
Sir, the aim of this new model should not be to separate students by ability, but to cultivate diverse strengths in every learner. By situating enrichment within neighbourhood schools, broadening the scope of learning beyond examinations and nurturing pathways for high-potential students, we can combine academic excellence with inclusivity and social cohesion.
Sir, this approach aligns with the broader vision of Singapore's education pathways, a system that values personalised learning, nurtures diverse strengths and emphasises inclusion and social cohesion.
Sir, for 40 years, the GEP concentrated differentiated instruction in nine schools. From 2027, it will be discontinued in its current form.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
At its best, the GEP fostered curiosity and independent thinking. We should preserve that spirit, empowering bright and motivated students to take ownership of their learning. The expertise built over four decades should also be spread system wide. More teachers need professional development in differentiated instruction, and more students should access enrichment beyond the examinable syllabus to prepare them for future-oriented work.
We must also manage the risks even as we seek to develop our high-ability learners and avoid students feeling like they are in a pressure cooker, with stiff competition between peers. A National Institute of Education (NIE) study in 2024 of intellectually gifted secondary students in Singapore schools found that their academic environments often produced a socio-emotional state of lowered self-esteem, heightened stress and increased effort, despite outward success.
May I ask how will MOE resource teachers across schools to deliver differentiated instruction well? How will this expertise be scaled across the system? Will MOE adopt more child-led approaches, given that higher-ability learners can be self-directed? Will MOE encourage more peer learning, so high-ability learners shift from a competitive mindset to a collaborative one? And how will schools safeguard students' psychosocial development and self-actualisation in a high-pressure environment?
Let us ensure that in nurturing our brightest minds, we cultivate not just their knowledge, but their confidence, curiosity and capacity to thrive as whole, resilient individuals.
Sir, Singapore's class sizes remain large. As of 2024, classrooms averaged 34 pupils at the primary level and 33 in secondary schools. This is significantly larger than the average in advanced industrialised countries where the numbers are 21 and 23 respectively and speak to the disparity that still exists in the amount attention our kids from their teachers in our public schools, relative to other countries.
To be clear, this is not an argument that smaller class sizes automatically translate into superior outcomes. That evidence is, indeed, mixed, although there is indication that the greatest benefits do come in the early grades and when egregiously large classes of 40 are moderated into something closer to 30.
However, that is far stronger evidence that smaller class sizes improve things like classroom management, strengthen student learning and reduces teacher's stress. This is eminently commonsensical and is one that is already abundantly clear when one actually speaks to teachers.
Notably, the Ministry has also considered that smaller class sizes have clear benefits in certain specific circumstances. For instance, in recognition of the challenges faced by the young learners adapting to a new educational setting, Primary 1 and 2 classes are kept at 30 students. Children in the former GEP, who may require more customised learning to fully unlock their intellectual potential, enjoy classrooms of closer to 20-plus, and foundation classes, which focus on building fundamentals for students who require additional support, range between 10 and 20 students.
I argue that the benefits of smaller classrooms should not just be limited to these special cases. Furthermore, the most recent edition of the Teaching and Learning International Survey points to another clear problem with large classes. It taxes our already overworked teachers. Our teachers spend more than 47 hours a week working, six hours more than their Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) counterparts. Paradoxically, these added hours come at the expense of classroom hours. Teachers in the OECD managed to squeeze in almost 23 hours teaching, compared to only 18 here.
Disappointingly, however, the news that Singapore will increase teacher recruitment from 700 to 1,000 annually was followed by a sucker punch. The Allied Educators in teaching and learning would be scaled back. This is the opposite direction of where we should be heading. Taken together, it is clear that the debate is not so much about whether we should reduce our class sizes, but about how. The straightforward solution is, of course, to hire more teachers.
The Ministry standard response to this has been that this will compromise the quality of the teachers that we hire while robbing other sectors of talent. MOE also says that there is a dearth of teaching talent. I have always found such arguments to be disingenuous. After all, are we implicitly suggesting that teachers from two decades ago, where there were more of them as a share of the workforce, were somehow not of the same quality as teachers today, or the investments in our future workforce are somehow a lower priority than those that drive our economy today?
In a sense, economics also tells us the solution. Should we worry about the ability to attract talent into teaching? And the answer is simple. We should pay our teachers more or reduce their workload. This will solve the chicken and egg problem of teachers who otherwise wish to remain in the profession but leave due to burnout. As any human resources professional knows, retention is more than half the battle compared to recruitment.
Even if we believe that the transition to smaller class sizes will take time, there is a more immediate solution. We can reduce the effective size by adding a teaching aid or Teaching Assistant for every classroom. Such Teaching Assistants can guide students that lag behind during breakout sessions or handle disruptive students so that the teacher can carry on with the curriculum. Another upshot of such professionals is that they can also take on administrative and planning tasks or at the very least, do so in collaboration with the main teacher. This burden is clearly something that teachers struggle with, as it occupies the majority of their time, distracts them from what they were primarily hired to do and adds unduly to their stress levels.
Sir, even if we accept that learning journeys and co-curricular supervision are valuable parts of holistic education, they are undeniably secondary to instruction per se. Redirecting the workload of teachers away from non-teaching tasks can only improve educational delivery. I, therefore, reiterate the Workers' Party call to cap class sizes closer to the OECD average, which is currently at 21, especially at the primary level; failing which to complement every classroom with teaching and learning Allied Educators or Teaching Assistants that will serve the students and ensure that they succeed in the classroom of tomorrow.
Sir, the education arms race in Singapore is real and it now has three fronts.
First, the PSLE. MOE's move from T-scores to achievement levels was thoughtful and reduced fine differentiation. But when families still believe that performance at age 12, Primary 6, influences access to certain secondary schools and future pathways, they will still invest more time, more effort and money to secure an advantage.
In 2023, households spent $1.8 billion on private tuition. The top 20% spent more than four times what the bottom 20% did. When stakes are concentrated, pressure and spending concentrate. That is the dynamic of an arms race.
The second race: Direct School Admissions (DSA). DSA was designed to broaden definitions of success and its intention is right. But admissions rose from about 3,500 in 2019 to about 4,400 in 2023, around 11% of the cohort. Applications have surged with 38,000 in 2023. When DSA becomes another prized gateway, families respond with earlier coaching and curated portfolios. We now risk running two races, an academic race through PSLE and a portfolio race through DSA.
Third, the AI acceleration. In an AI-disrupted world, careers will shift multiple times and skill upgrading must be continuous over life. AI tools can now personalise practice and provide instant feedback. But many advanced tools are subscription-based or require strong home support. If unmanaged, AI becomes the new tuition and the arms race becomes digital.
Why does dismantling this arms race matter? Some argue that as long as employers value academic credentials, then competition is inevitable. But labour market norms will not shift overnight. Our education policy therefore must respond now. In an AI-driven world, success will depend less on early sorting and more on adaptability, deep thinking and lifelong learning habits. These cannot be built in a sprint to age 12.
What should we do? First, refine DSA so it broadens opportunity rather than amplifies preparation advantage – through structured outreach, authentic school-based nominations, and clearer criteria to reduce portfolio gaming.
Second, make AI a national equaliser – guarantee baseline access in schools, teach AI literacy, and shift assessments toward reasoning and authentic application.
But this may not be enough. MOE should consider a carefully safeguarded, voluntary 10-year through-train pilot from Primary 1 to Secondary 4. Under such a pilot, standards remain aligned with national expectations, students graduate with recognised qualifications such as the GCE, mobility and transfer options are preserved, and subject-based banding can start at an earlier age and deploy teachers according to the needs of the students using a “flexible class size” model instead of a “universal small class size” model. Not small classes everywhere, but right-sized classes, flexible and fit for purpose. Evaluation should examine academic performance, student well-being, tuition reliance and socio-economic mobility. Scaling should be considered if outcomes are at least as strong, with reduced pressure.
Sir, we do not have a weak system. But there is urgency in building an education system ready for a very different future, one centered on lifelong learning, adaptability and strong character. Dismantling the PSLE, DSA and AI-driven arms race is only the beginning of redesigning education for the long race ahead.
Mr Chairman, during the recent Lunar New Year, my soon-to-be 11-year-old cousin Denise asked me a question I could not answer. She asked, "Why does the PSLE have to exist?" Before I could respond, Denise clarified herself. "I'm not saying no exams. I understand we need to be assessed. But why does how I perform on a single day determine the outcome of my six years in primary school? If AI can do so many things, why do I still need to memorise so many things for PSLE? Why can't we just add up the scores of all of my weighted assessments?" My response was, why indeed?
What struck me the most was not the stress that Denise had described, one and a half years away from sitting the PSLE. It was a decision that she had already made on her own. Going into Primary 5, she had pre-emptively dropped Higher Chinese, not because she had done badly but because she was worried she could not cope in Primary 6. She had looked at the road ahead, thought about her korkor and jiejie's experiences and decided to limit herself before a single PSLE paper had been sat.
While I had no good answer for Denise, I promised her that I would raise this in Parliament.
What Denise had identified intuitively is a tension that sits at the heart of our education system. Our desired outcomes of education for our children to become confident persons, self-directed learners, active contributors and concerned citizens. By the end of primary school, we want our students to know their strengths and areas for growth. Yet we assess six years of learning via a high stakes, timed, written examination across four subjects in a week. We say one thing and we measure another.
This is not a new observation, but it has never been more urgent. We just passed a Budget that commits billions to AI adoption that urges Singaporeans to move up the value chain, to exercise judgement, creativity and human insight. Yet come September, will we be assessing the 35,000 12-year-olds who will sit the PSLE on any of these skills? I welcome the long overdue review of our education system.
The WP has proposed making the PSLE optional. Students who are academically inclined can choose to sit the exam and compete for a select number of academically specialised secondary schools. Every other student should have a default through-train pathway to a partner secondary school. We should have an education system where the default is that every child passes through compulsory education without a high stakes written exam determining their trajectory at age 12.
The question is not whether to assess, but how. Removing PSLE as a default would free up months of curriculum time currently consumed by PSLE exam preparation and give our students more time and space to develop genuine strengths, deeper interest in subjects and also 21st Century Core Competencies.
Denise did not ask us to make school easier, she just asked for it to make sense.
Mr Chairman, education should be joyful. Yet in Singapore, once every six years, parents face intense pressure over two milestones: Primary 1 registration and the PSLE. The uncertainty of school placements, combined with the high stakes of academic outcomes, creates enormous stress – stress that no parent should face alone.
The Primary 1 registration process focuses on what the parents have done. Whether they live nearby, are alumni, or volunteer. We should spotlight our children instead. We go great lengths to get priority. I have deep respect for their efforts to do what they believe is best for their children. But we must reflect on how or whether the system unintentionally amplifies anxiety, undermines fairness and detracts from the schooling experience.
As MOE embarks on a review of the Primary 1 registration process, I have two points to make. How does the current system create stress? In our meritocratic society, every child who works hard should have the opportunity to thrive. One practical step could be removing the secondary school affiliation advantages, so all students compete on a fair footing.
Second, can the process better support students of diverse backgrounds and talents? The system should feel like Harry Potter’s Sorting Hat, helping parents choose the school where their child can maximise their own unique potential. Let us centre the child – and match or sort each one to a school where their unique potential can flourish.
Sir, Chairman, the Grow Well SG initiative correctly identifies sleep as a fundamental pillar of the seed habit framework, referring to sleep, eat, exercise and device usage. I am calling for MOE to set a national standard to synchronise school start times to 8.30 am for primary, secondary schools and junior colleges, alongside an integrated school day specifically for primary school levels. This build on calls by my hon friend, Sengkang Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, regarding the benefits of later start time for adolescent health.
Current data is sobering. The 2024 Singapore Youth epidemiology and resilience study shows nearly 85% of secondary school students feeling unrested, while Duke NUS research indicates they average only six and a half hours of sleep, well below the recommended eight to 10 hours.
The stakes are equally high for our primary school students. Between ages seven and 12, a child's brain and body are in a state of rapid fundamental construction. Science tells us that deep sleep stage, non-Rapid Eye Movement sleep is when the pituitary gland releases the vast majority of growth hormones necessary for physical development. For these younger children, getting the recommended 10 hours of sleep is not a luxury. It is a biological requirement for physical health and cognitive wiring. When a primary school student is chronically under slept, the first thing to suffer is executive function, the ability to manage emotions, follow instructions and focus. We see this manifesting in classrooms as increased irritability and the lack of resilience. By failing to protect their sleep, we are effectively handicapping their formative years, trading long-term neurological health for short-term academic grind.
For adolescents, this is a matter of biology. During puberty, the brain undergoes a phase delay. Their bodies do not release melatonin until much later. It has been said that waking a teen at 6.00 am is physiologically equivalent to waking an adult at 3.00 am. We cannot legislate against the circadian rhythm.
While MOE has brought forward personal learning device default sleep modes to 10.30 pm, we must also address wake times. Currently, many primary school students on early bus routes are picked up from 6.00 am or even earlier. Shifting to 8.30 am ensures students do not start their day exhausted.
I propose an integrated school day for primary school starting at 8.30 am and ending at 3.30 pm. By incorporating co-curricular activities (CCAs), structured work instead of homework and remedials into these hours, we ensure that when a child reaches home, school responsibilities are largely complete, making the lights out boundary more achievable. Rather than relying on school level autonomy, we need a clear national standard. Let us set the bell for 8.30 am and give our children the rest they need to reach their full potential.
Trade is the lifeblood of Singapore, making it essential for us to facilitate as much trade as possible. This requires a focus on establishing numerous companies and fostering a mindset of entrepreneurship that can create significant impact.
Nurturing this entrepreneurial mindset and skill set should begin at a young age and schools are the perfect environment for this exposure. By integrating entrepreneurship into the CCAs, students can learn about business establishment and experience what it means to be an entrepreneur. There are already some schools implementing this but we should make this apply across all schools for students to be given the opportunity to participate.
This co-curricular activity can be one of many programmes launched in primary and secondary schools. Trade associations and chambers can play a vital role in developing the curriculum and nurturing young entrepreneurs. For instance, the Singapore Malay Chambers of Commerce and Industry has initiated a programme where students visit the chamber to gain insights into how businesses are established and operated.
By implementing such a curriculum, students will acquire a diverse range of skills, including marketing, distribution, operations, finance, resourcefulness and negotiation. Introducing entrepreneurship in schools will activate their innovative and creative minds, positioning us as a nation of creators and innovators capable of establishing companies and business solutions. In time, this initiative will not only increase the number of companies but also enhance our global trade presence, connecting Singapore with other regions of the world.
Sir, last year, I asked the Minister about thermal inequality in school classrooms. Research shows that each temperature degree of temperature increase cuts learning by 1% to 2%, hitting lower-income students hardest. The Minister acknowledged that. He listed measures, cool paint, faster fans, physical education (PE) attire, mixed mode air conditioning for halls. For classrooms, continue to explore. If an unfair learning gap is forming, can we afford to wait?
Every MOE school is already air-conditioned: computer labs, science labs, libraries, lecture theatres, staff rooms, admin offices, all air-conditioned. The Ministry is now installing mixed mode air-conditioning in school halls, so the electrical infrastructure is there. The condensers are there. The maintenance contracts are there. The only rooms without air-conditioning are the classrooms where 420,000 children spend most of the day.
We should extend aircon to the rooms that matter most. A primary school teacher told me by 11.00 am in the morning, classrooms are unbearably hot. Fans just circulate hot air and create noise that drowns out teaching. Children cannot sit still. They ask to go to the toilet just to escape the heat. Teachers cannot teach effectively in that heat either.
A National University of Singapore study in Building and Environment found cognitive performance in Singapore's fan ventilated classrooms drops 9% in slightly warm conditions and 18% in warm conditions. There is no temperature standard for classrooms. To avoid thermal inequality, we should set one.
In 2023, the Government's Mercury Taskforce designated community centres and sports halls as airconditioned cooling spaces for the public. But for schools, reduce outdoor activities, relax dress code, send children home. So, we will air-condition community centres for adults, but close schools for the kids.
International schools and independent schools have air-conditioned classrooms. Neighbourhood schools have ceiling fans. The children who can least afford the learning penalty are paying it. Capital cost, less than $100 million for all classrooms, under 1% of the MOE's budget paid once. On running costs, 130 schools already have rooftop solar under Solar Nova. Expand it to all schools and offset the additional electricity partially.
I am not asking to switch on air-conditioning all day. Set a target temperature, switch on when the thermostat exceeds it. MOE headquarters (HQ) already runs a similar system, centralised air-conditioning with automatic start times and cut-offs. Just extend it to our classrooms.
Sir, two questions. Will MOE establish indoor temperature standards for classrooms? And will MOE commit to a timeline for a phased programme – beginning with primary schools – to install mixed mode air-conditioning in all classrooms?
Chairman, I rise to speak on inter-faith learning for social cohesion.
Singapore's harmony did not happen by accident. It is the result of deliberate policies and hard work, by our founding fathers over many decades, that build trust across the communities. I would describe this as the Singapore model of practical harmony – not just tolerance, but day-to-day cooperation, a shared civic space and the instinct to navigate differences thoughtfully in our society.
In a multiracial, multi-religion society, this harmony must be renewed in every generation. Chairman, schools are where this renewal can be made real.
Inter-faith learning should not be treated as a niche topic or something left to certain communities, certain neighbourhoods or only to those who are already exposed. If we want mutual understanding to become a shared national norm, every student should have balanced, age-appropriate exposure to major religions and beliefs that shape Singapore in a way that builds trust, reduces stereotypes and equips them to navigate difference with confidence.
Chairman, I therefore hope MOE can consider deepening inter-faith education in three practical ways.
First, MOE can strengthen a clear structured baseline of inter-faith literacy with age-appropriate content that focuses on understanding, common values and how Singapore manages diversity. The aim is not theological depth. The aim is civic understanding and mutual respect for the various religions in Singapore.
Second, MOE can make inter-faith learning more experiential. Lived, not classroom-based, and more fun. Schools can be supported to run structured dialogues, visits and interfaith learning journeys. Here, MOE can partner and work with non-Government organisations, for example, Inter-Religious Organisations, which has a long and extensive experience in engaging different faith communities in a constructive and practical way.
Third, MOE can support teachers and school teachers with ready-to-use resources and facilitation guides. Inter-faith discussions require careful handling. I believe many educators will welcome clearer frameworks, case studies and training so that they can facilitate confidently, especially when sensitive questions are being raised.
Chairman, my point is that ultimately, inter-faith understanding is not about preventing conflict, it is about building social capital. It is about ensuring that our young grow up with the instinct to ask, to listen and to respect. When students learn early that different faiths can coexist and share the same space, we strengthen the roots of cohesion that hold Singapore together.
If we want Singapore to remain united in a more polarised world, we must invest not only in academic outcomes, but also in the social fabric. Inter-faith learning is one of the quiet, high-impact investments that will pay dividends for decades to come.
Sir, our children are spending more time in sedentary digital engagement. This poses a risk to their physical well-being and cognitive development. Primary schools provide two to 2.5 hours of PE weekly, but logistics can eat into this short duration. This is insufficient to build a robust physical foundation in children, who need at least 60 minutes of moderate to rigorous physical activity daily.
Improving fundamental motor skills early enhances movement confidence, cultivates lifelong habits and broadens our pipeline for national athletes and combat-fit soldiers. Better physical fitness also improves academic performance and cognitive focus.
For a small nation, our competitive edge lies in the quality and resilience of our human capital. PE is therefore not a break from learning but a critical investment in our collective strength. I propose increasing the minimum PE curriculum time in primary schools to five hours per week. To address manpower constraints, MOE could supplement PE teachers with qualified coaches from the National Registry of Coaches and the National Registry of Exercise Professionals.
Not all PE time needs to be conducted by PE professionals. Subject-based teachers could conduct movement-based lessons where science concepts, like velocity, can be taught through active outdoor experimentation, bringing knowledge to life. To overcome space constraints, canteens could be fitted with nonslip flooring and movable furniture to create multi-purpose play areas. Surfaces in schools could be covered with plastic sports tiling to expand usable PE space.
By raising the floor of our children's fitness, we can raise the ceiling of what Singapore can achieve.
Mr Chair, AI is transforming education. But our goal must be clear. Students should be not just learners or users of AI, but innovators and creators of AI. AI-ducation – the use of AI to personalise learning, identify gaps and guide teaching – can help students progress at their own pace while freeing teachers from repetitive tasks to focus on mentorship and meaningful learning.
To be AI-ready, how will students and teachers be equipped with the resources and skills needed to thrive in an AI-ducation environment?
Our next bound of staff development must focus decisively on AI proficiency.
First, AI can be a force multiplier to address staff strength challenges. We need to up the AI proficiency of all staff so they can free up "human bandwidth" for high-value student interactions. Second, teachers must be practitioners of AI before they can be teachers of AI. Beyond standard professional development, is there a structured AI proficiency roadmap so every teacher can use AI confidently as a daily assistant? How do we ensure AI tools are deployed to subtract admin workload rather than add a new layer of tech management duties? Is there a framework to regularly benchmark teachers' AI competency?
Our students and educators must not just use AI. They must innovate it, create it and lead its future.
Sir, in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The educational gap facing the Malay community is well-documented, but our understanding remains incomplete. We know the outcomes are unequal, yet we lack the granular data needed to design truly effective interventions. Let me be clear about what the three data points I proposed would enable.
First, annual university graduation rates by ethnicity would provide continuous monitoring rather than sporadic snapshots. We track economic indicators monthly, yet assess educational equity only when politically convenient. This inconsistency undermines accountability. Annual tracking would reveal whether our interventions are working or merely well-intentioned.
Second, data linking income and ethnicity in university access would answer a critical question: Are financial barriers or other factors driving the gap? MENDAKI subsidy data would show whether lower-income Malay students are accessing higher education at improving rates. Without this, we cannot distinguish between solvable financial constraints and deeper systemic issues.
Third, dropout rates by income and ethnicity would identify where students are falling through the cracks. Is attrition concentrated among low-income families? At specific educational levels? Among particular demographic groups? Each pattern requires different solutions. The Malay community deserves policies built on evidence, not presumption. Singapore has the technical capacity for this level of analysis.
Thank you, Chairman. Sir, AI will not just change jobs, it will change learning. MOE has taken important steps to use AI to reduce administrative workload for teachers. That is welcome. But if we stop there, we risk using a transformational technology merely to improve efficiency.
I have four points to make.
First, AI must be used as a pedagogical tool, not merely as an efficiency tool. Beyond automation, how might we use AI to redesign pedagogy? AI can provide real-time feedback, identify misconceptions early and support differentiated instruction at scale. It allows students to progress at different paces and receive targeted support without stigma. Used thoughtfully, AI can shift assessment from ranking students against one another to tracking their individual growth.
MOE has also rightly spoken about reducing the arms race in education. AI could help us further rebalance the system, retaining necessary standards while placing greater emphasis on calibration and support. AI-enabled formative assessments provide real-time feedback, detect misconceptions early and adapt learning as students' progress, reducing reliance on a single high-stakes checkpoint. If such formative systems can be scaled up, we may have an opportunity to rethink the timing and role of high-stakes examinations.
Research suggests that very early high-stakes selection does not necessarily improve long-term outcomes. In some cases, it narrows learning and intensifies anxiety without improving standards. So, if continuous diagnostic assessment can provide clearer signals of student progress and learning gaps, then early high-stakes exams may not need to carry such disproportionate weight.
In that regard, will MOE pilot AI-enabled formative assessments at scale and could such pilots enable a recalibration of the timing and weight of high-stakes examinations?
Second, as AI replaces more routine cognitive work, we must strengthen distinctly human capabilities. As structured cognitive tasks become automated, our advantage will lie increasingly in the human capabilities like imagination, collaboration, resilience, physical vitality and initiative.
MOE has long emphasised 21st century competencies. In the AI era, these will become even more central. How are these competencies being embedded in classroom practice and assessment, and not just articulated in policy documents?
Ensuring space for the arts, sport, recreation, project-based learning and entrepreneurial exploration will be critical. In an AI-driven economy, how does MOE ensure that these areas are protected and strengthened within the curriculum?
Reducing the arms race is not about lowering standards. It is about aligning our standards with the capabilities that matter most for the future.
Third, we should address concentrated demand for certain primary schools. Persistent pressure around Primary 1 registration suggests that demand remains concentrated in a number of highly sought-after schools. If we are serious about reducing competition intensity, structural supply deserves consideration alongside the messaging.
So, could MOE consider expanding the footprint and capacity of high-demand schools by establishing additional campuses or increasing the intake in more locations? In doing so, what key factors determine whether a successful school model can be replicated elsewhere?
Fourth, talent pathways must reflect long-term development, not early acceleration. If we seek to reduce excessive academic pressure, we must also ensure that competitive intensity is not simply directed to other domains.
The original intent of DSA was to recognise diverse talents beyond academics in sports, the arts and other areas of strength. That intent remains important. However, in a competitive environment, DSA may inadvertently incentivise earlier and more intensive specialisation. In some cases, this increases the risk of burn-out, injury or loss of intrinsic motivation.
Without longitudinal data on how these students progress through the DSA pathway, whether they remain engaged, transition successfully or exit early, it becomes difficult to assess both the intended and unintended outcomes of the DSA pathway. So, in this context, could MOE consider conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate whether DSA supports: (a) a sustainable national talent pipeline in the respective domains, and (b) reducing both short-term and long-term outcomes for individual students?
Mr Alex Yam. Kindly deliver both your cuts together.
Thank you, Chairman. AI is shaping the way we learn and the way we work. But it also raises deeper questions about judgement, equity and the preservation of human creativity.
Our students are already encountering AI tools in their daily lives. AI literacy must mean more than technical familiarity. It must include the ability to question outputs, detect bias, understand limitations and exercise ethical judgement. A student should know not only how to generate an answer through AI, but how to interrogate it.
In practical classroom terms, this may mean requiring students to produce an initial draft before consulting AI and assessing them on how they evaluate and refine AI suggestions. It may mean presenting students with an AI-generated essay and asking them to critique its weaknesses.
In Mathematics and Science, we might place greater weight on explaining reasoning rather than simplify and presenting a solution. In the arts, AI, of course, can generate various variations, but the creative direction must remain firmly in the hands of the student.
The principle therefore is simple. AI should be a thinking partner, not an answer engine. It should expand imagination and not standardise it. It should accelerate our ability to iterate but not eliminate intellectual struggle.
We must be careful that creativity is not stifled by convenience. The most complex processing tool ever is the human brain. It would be deeply ironic if, in building ever more powerful machines, we allowed our own capacity for deep thinking and problem solving to weaken. Some degree of cognitive effort, even friction, is necessary for growth. If AI removes that effort entirely, the learning becomes hollow.
At the same time, we must ensure that there is equitable access. AI literacy must therefore be embedded systematically and age appropriately across the education journey, with teachers supported through clear guidelines and professional development. But the conversation does not end at graduation.
AI is reshaping industries across the board. Continuous learning is becoming essential not only for engineers, programmers, accountants, designers, logistics consultants and frontline supervisors. Yet, mid-career and mature workers may find AI training inaccessible due to cost, time constraints or being unfamiliarity with digital tools.
Here, accessibility and relevance are key. Upskilling pathways must be modular and practical, integrated into mainstream continuing education rather than confined to specialist tracks. Training should be directly linked to real workplace tasks. And smaller firms that lack in-house capacity will need further support. Lower-wage workers must not be left behind as automation advances.
If digital literacy has become a baseline skill over the past two decades, AI literacy must now become a shared national competency. It should not be a niche advantage enjoyed by a small group, but a common capability that strengthens our collective resilience.
Ultimately, AI is a tool. Whether it empowers or diminishes us depends on the norms and structures we build around it. If we are intentional, we can raise a generation that masters AI without being mastered by it and a workforce that uses AI to enhance judgement rather than outsource it. In doing so, we ensure that technology amplifies what is makes us uniquely human.
Chairman, our young graduates are entering the workforce at a time in a disrupted age. AI is becoming more advanced, even at entry-level tasks. And throughout their careers, they will need to adapt and pivot several times, as the pace of change and skills obsolescence increases.
If our education system does not evolve, there will be a growing mismatch between graduates' skills, job expectations and experiences and evolving market needs.
Our education system, especially our IHLs, must become more agile and proactive in anticipating future skills demands, especially in this AI disrupted age. This must happen at every level and not just at our universities, but in our polytechnics and ITEs too.
In light of this, how will the Ministry be ensuring that our IHLs refresh their curriculum and pedagogy to ensure that our students are ready for an AI-disrupted job market, with better chances of securing a good job?
Chairman, in my maiden speech at the debate on the President's Address, I said that SkillsFuture risks is becoming a supermarket of choices, plenty of choice but no clear ladder to climb towards better career outcomes. Today, I want to return to that concern and ask the Ministry to take three concrete steps.
The urgency is real. According to Randstad Workmonitor 2026 Report, global job postings requiring AI agent skills surged by over 1500% in 2025 alone. A three or four-year bachelor's degree cannot keep pace with that kind of velocity, and neither can our current continuous education ecosystem that is still struggling to get employers to recognise lifelong learning credentials at all.
Firstly, as I suggested in my maiden speech, the Careers and Skills Passport should evolve into a dynamic living credential. Right now, it functions largely as a digital filing cabinet. Former Education Minister Chan articulated a vision in July 2024 of a living ecosystem, where micro-credentials from across our IHLs stacked into formal qualifications. That vision remains aspirational. I ask the Ministry to set a concrete timeline for full-cross IHL recognition across universities, polytechnics and our ITEs so that adult learners can build towards a credible recognised qualification piece by piece with each step appropriately documented in the Careers and Skills Passport.
Secondly, cross recognition only works if there is enough worth recognising. I welcome the new AI programmes our IHLs have been launching. But the pace of market demand is out running the pace of supply. I ask the Ministry to set explicit targets for IHL micro-credential offerings in fast-moving sectors and to report progress against those targets annually so that we can hold ourselves accountable.
Thirdly, we must look beyond our shores. Singapore prides itself on being open to the world and our upskilling framework should be no different. There is a vast ecosystem online of world-class universities offering Masters level micro-credentials through various platforms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) MicroMasters Programme on edX and Georgia Tech's Michael Masters in Analytics, which stacked directly towards their fully accredited and well-regarded online Master of Science and Analytics, are exactly the kind of high signals stackable credentials that carry global employer recognition.
I ask the Minister to extend SkillsFuture Credit eligibility and Career in Skills Passport Recognition to such credentials from reputable overseas universities, not to replace our IHLs but to fill gaps while our local capacity develops.
The Prime Minister has made AI a centrepiece of this year's Budget. The world not waiting, our workers are not waiting. Our continuous education, ecosystem must keep pace.
Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as a university educator and administrator.
As I follow the recent discourse on AI and education both in Singapore and globally, I observe two seemingly polarised views on the impact of AI on education, particularly higher education and CET. One is that little will change and the other is that everything must change in the age of AI.
I see elements of truth in both views. On the one hand, AI will affect both content – what is taught – and instructional methods – how knowledge is shared and learnt. Students will need to know how to use AI tools and interpret AI output with discernment, as many Members have raised, while new technologies can enable more personalised learning experiences.
On the other hand, there is genuine concern about cognitive offloading if students rely excessively on AI. For instance, an MIT study published last year found that heavy reliance on AI tools for essay writing may lead to long-term cognitive harm as measured through brain scans. Students who repeatedly relied on AI had weakened neural connectivity, poorer memory recall and had a reduced sense of ownership over their own writing. This underscores that there is no substitute for building foundational skills in thinking and writing.
So, there is a need for clarity on what should change and what should be retained in regard to education in the AI age.
What is becoming clear is that tertiary education, in particular, needs to be revamped more quickly. When students can acquire knowledge for themselves with the help of AI tutors that are available around the clock, IHLs need to consider what value they can bring to their students and hence, how to make the best use of curriculum time.
It should no longer be about lecturers downloading information to students. Time spent in classes would be more productively used for case discussions, problem-solving and Socratic dialogue with facilitators and peers, to maximise opportunities for mutual learning, evaluation and reflection. IHLs are also uniquely positioned to help students develop interpersonal skills, make friends and build networks.
To their credit, our IHLs are already alert to the needs in this changed environment and are feeling their way forward. Various pilots are being done to revamp curriculum and update instructional methods.
I would like to know what plans the Ministry has to support IHLs in doing so and, in particular, what can be done to facilitate the evaluation of outcomes and to promote sharing of learning points and propagation of good practices more systematically across IHLs.
It is also clear that AI will significantly influence how student learning is assessed. If instructors assign take-home essays, I think it would be unrealistic to ask or expect students not to use AI tools. Trying to police unauthorised AI use could lead to contentious disputes between faculty and students in all but the most clear-cut cases.
Fortunately, there are alternatives. Where the objective is to assess independent thinking without AI assistance, instructors may use supervised assessments with restricted Internet access. For take-home assignments, a larger proportion of marks come from vivas or oral examinations to evaluate the student's thinking process, even when AI tools are used.
With different forms of assessment, there is also a need to better reflect the range of knowledge and skills that students acquire. A single course grade may not fully capture a student's competencies and skills particularly when there are both technical concepts and skills to master, as well as an evaluative or problem-solving dimension.
Take a business course for example. Students are expected to master economics, accountancy and business concepts, apply these to business decisions through case discussions and collaborate effectively in teams.
A single course grade or Grade Point Average offers limited insight into these distinct dimensions. It may therefore be useful for an academic transcript to reflect multiple components, knowledge and technical skills, evaluative and applied capabilities and interpersonal competencies. While the first component may be more objective, the latter two are arguably more important.
Internationally, examples are emerging. The University of Michigan has piloted skills transcripts for engineering students to highlight teamwork, problem-solving and technical proficiencies. The Stanford University Integrative Learning Portfolio Lab helps students create digital portfolios that capture academic, co-curricular and personal experiences beyond traditional grades. In Singapore, Temasek Polytechnic is pioneering a skills transcript for students graduating this year.
Could the Ministry elaborate on what is doing to encourage or support innovation in learning assessment, whether there is ongoing research in this area and what can be done facilitate systematic sharing of good practices and learning points across institutions?
Chairman, when I speak with students and working adults, the question is rarely about the number of courses available. It is this: "If I invest time and effort in learning, will it genuinely move me forward?"
In Singapore, we have long believed that effort should open doors, that hard work, not background, determines opportunity. That belief is central to our social compact.
The merger of SkillsFuture Singapore and Workforce Singapore is therefore significant. Careers are now longer and less linear. Support must feel integrated across skills acquisition, job transitions and progression. A fragmented journey erodes confidence; a coherent one strengthens it. But integration alone will not secure trust. Lifelong learning must translate into real mobility, not just participation.
First, outcomes should increasingly focus on sustained progression. Beyond enrolment and initial placement, what ultimately matters are longer-term wage growth, employment stability and the quality of skills-job matching. It is not enough to move someone into a job quickly if that job does not reflect their upgraded capability. When effort visibly leads to advancement, confidence strengthens naturally.
Second, a clear framework should be set for policy decisions. A single agency simplifies the journey for the learner, jobseeker and worker. But sometimes, policy priorities diverge. For example, in resource-constrained segments, should employment-driven outcomes or longer-term career development training needs take priority? As the new agency will report to both MOE and MOM, how can decision-making gridlocks be prevented?
Third, incentives must align. Lifelong learning succeeds only when employers signal that skills are recognised in promotion, pay and job redesign. If retraining does not shift progression pathways, workers will hesitate, regardless of subsidies. Training must change trajectories, not just transcripts. In a changing economy, every Singaporean who is willing to adapt should be able to see a clear path forward. If implemented well, this reform will strengthen trust in upward mobility for the next generation.
Chairman, I support MOE's continued efforts to strengthen SkillsFuture as a pillar of lifelong learning, especially as our workforce navigates rapid shifts in technology and industry demand.
As of today, we have a wide and growing menu of courses and subsidies under SkillsFuture. But for many Singaporeans, the hardest step is always the first step, knowing what course I should choose, whether this course aligns to my interests, my aptitude and also my longer-term aspirations.
Today, the reality is this: those with stronger networks will have a higher likelihood of knowing people working in emerging or high-value industries. They can talk to these people to ask about what kind of skills they should acquire, what kind of course they should take so that they can enter such industries. But the truth is those without networks or social capital, however, have to spend more time, more energy, more resources figuring out which pathways to take.
Surely, our system can do better to reduce such costs, so that decisions can be made better. In this regard, I propose complementing our existing SkillsFuture offerings with something simpler, lighter and decision-friendly. I call this SkillsFuture "Taster Sessions", at lower costs or no cost.
"Taster Session" itself gives a flavour of what industry is like or what skillsets you require. A good "Taster Session", however, should provide answers to basic questions, such as "What is this course about?", "What are the skills required for me to do well in this industry or sector?" Furthermore, such Taster sessions can also provide a broad roadmap, a landscape of professional pathways. What are the positions that are there in this industries, and what kind of skills I should acquire, so that I can assume responsibility in these roles.
"Taster Sessions" can also cover clear learning pathways. In the event that a learner is interested to deep dive, these pathways should be grouped in a way that is easily understood by individuals, grouped by job role, skills type, level of difficulty or industry type.
If we are able to do this well, individuals will have information and better understanding of the stakes involved before committing time, energy, money and even, potentially, a career change. This is especially important for emerging and specialised areas, where interest is high, but understanding is often lacking.
Whether be it frontal technologies, green capabilities or strategical domains, what we want is for every Singaporean to be able to enter this fields with eyes wide open. Chairman, providing "Taster Sessions" can further strengthen equity, given how those with weaker networks and lower social capital often have limited means to understand the scope of course and industries. To summarise my cut, SkillsFuture "Taster Sessions" can help to close the information gap and enable individuals to make better decisions, because do we not make many decisions every single day?
Chairman, I support the Government's strong investment in AI skills for Singaporeans. Expanding the TeSA programme to help non-tech workers gain practical AI capabilities sends an important signal, that AI is no longer a niche skill, but a foundational one.
As we build these capabilities, we must ensure that inclusion keeps pace, especially for persons with disabilities, so that new divides are not created. Training providers supported under the national AI initiatives should incorporate reasonable accommodations; such as screen-reader compatible materials, captioning or sign language interpretation where needed and accessible training venues. Could the Minister clarify what requirements are in place to ensure such accommodations are consistently provided?
Mr Chairman, Singapore's students ranked first globally for Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). That is a genuine achievement and the result of deliberate, sustained policy work over decades. The question is not whether we have done well. We have. The question is whether we are developing the full range of human capacity for the future economy.
The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025 identifies the fastest-growing skill categories for the coming decade. They span across two domains, analytical reasoning and creative thinking on the cognitive side, empathy, social influence and self-awareness on the affective side. Both are identified as co-equal drivers of the future workforce value.
McKinsey Global Institute's automation research finds that up to 30% of work activities globally could be displaced by current technologies, with activities least susceptible to displacement being those requiring social and emotional intelligence, complex negotiation, empathetic judgment and creative collaboration.
Our current system has invested heavily in the cognitive mode, that is analytical, convergent and precisely measurable. Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences framework identifies that at least eight distinct cognitive systems – linguistics, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist. A system that assesses primarily through linguistic and logical-mathematical channels is measuring only a subset of human potential, not its full range. We need more cognitive and affective diversity.
The affective dimension carries equal weight. Researchers Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, established that emotional intelligence, comprising of self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy and relational skill, can be measured and developed. Their model for emotional quotient (EQ) showed that performance and leadership outcomes are comparable to, and in some domains exceed, those of cognitive intelligence quotient (IQ).
This is what the Neuroscience establishes. Research by Mary Helen Immordino-Yang and Antonio Damasio demonstrated that emotion and cognition are neurologically integrated. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for executive function and higher-order reasoning does not operate independently of the limbic system. What was their central finding? It is biologically impossible to build memories, engage complex thoughts or make meaningful decisions without emotion. Affective disengagement impairs the cognitive performance even when the analytical capacity is intact.
This matters for Singapore specifically. The Institute of Mental Health's National Study on Mental Health found that one in three young Singaporeans, aged 15 to 35, had experienced a mental disorder in their lifetime. PISA data shows Singaporean students report among the highest levels of test anxiety of any participating country, with 86% of students reporting that they worry about poor grades.
This is significantly above the OECD average of 66%. Research establishes that it actively constrains cognitive flexibility and creative risk-taking. Researcher Barker and colleagues examined the daily activity logs of 70 six-year-old children against standardised measures of executive function. Their finding was direct, the more time children spent in less-structured, self-directed activities, the stronger their executive function scores are.
Structured activities showed the inverse relationship. Executive function, goal pursuit and cognitive flexibility is precisely what the AI-era economy will value. Executive function develops through the experience of self-direction.
The synthesis is straightforward. Developing the full cognitive and affective spectrum is not supplementary to academic rigour. It is the condition under which academic rigour produces its maximum return. We need more cognitive and affective diversity.
I suggest three Interventions for consideration. The first is "White Space Fridays". Two protected hours per week for student-led, self-directed exploration. Students register a project or hobby each semester, and schools provide the infrastructure, such as makerspaces and music rooms. Teachers provide the resources, not direction. No rubrics, no grades required.
The rationale draws from the research at the Stanford Center on Adolescence, found that young people who develop personal purpose through self-directed exploration demonstrate greater academic motivation, stronger mental health outcomes and more robust career trajectories than those whose goals are externally assigned.
The second suggestion is Student Policy Committees. The difference between consultation and co-governance is consequential. In consultation, views are heard. In co-governance, the participant is present for trade-offs, constraints and decisions where competing priorities cannot all be satisfied. That particular experience is where affective intelligence develops in practice.
Researchers Zeldin, Camino and Mook examined youth-adult governance partnerships across multiple institutional settings and established that genuine partnerships, involving real decision-making authority, produce durable improvements in youth self-efficacy, empathy and civic belonging. The effect was significantly stronger in conditions of genuine co-governance than in consultative arrangements.
The proposal to form Student Policy Committees, with school leaders being the facilitator and advisors to the committee. This will provide genuine standing in discussions on student welfare, facility use and sustainability goals. Students are briefed on the constraints, the budget, the logistics and their input carries formal weight. Rotation between different groups of students, distributes the developmental benefit broadly rather than concentrating it among a narrow student cohort.
The third is a National Discovery Endowment. Researcher Erik Erikson, in "Identity, Youth and Crisis", identified the age 15 to 25 as the critical psychosocial window for identity formation. Subsequent neuroscientific research also confirms that adolescence represents a period of heightened neuroplasticity, specifically in areas in governing self-concept, risk evaluation and social cognition. These are the baselines of identity development.
We should do more to invest before the age of 25. After this window, neuroplasticity would have largely closed for the most consequential function. The Discovery Endowment Credits will give for Singaporeans aged 15 to 25 more opportunities to discover themselves, a sense of awareness, self-management and develop maturity that is essential for long-term development. These credits can be used for non-academic self-directed exploration, regional internships, acquire niche skills, independent project materials, or even get social enterprise grants.
A tiered credit structure can be considered to help disadvantaged households address the documented reality where exploratory experiences are distributed unequally across income brackets. In the long term, this will potentially reduce the fiscal drag caused by mid-career burnout and career mismatch and its effects on absenteeism, healthcare utilisation and loss in productivity.
These three interventions share a single logic. Singapore's next phase of development requires citizens who can operate across the full cognitive and affective spectrum, who can think divergently as well as convergently, lead with empathy as well as analyse and navigate uncertainty with both intellectual rigour and emotional resilience.
I will end with this. In 1959, the British physicist and novelist CP Snow delivered a lecture at Cambridge, which was later published as "The Two Cultures". His observation was simple. That intellectual life had split into two mutually uncomprehending groups: the scientists and the humanists, who had largely stopped understanding or respecting what the other did. Between them sat a gulf of mutual contempt that was quietly crippling society's capacity to solve its most serious national problems.
What Snow identified at the civilisation level, we can observe in our daily classrooms, boardrooms, teams, community and everyday life today. The analytically formidable student who cannot read a room and the relationally gifted student whom our assessment architecture cannot see. Two intelligences sitting side by side, but neither recognising the other as intelligence at all. They will naturally yield to the consensus of their group and disregard the richer connective and effective diversity of others.
Stone's warning was that societies which allow this bifurcation to harden do not merely lose cultural richness. They lose problem solving capacity and capability. The challenges that matter most requires both cognitive and effective domains in genuine integration. That is true in 1959, it is truer today. We must continue to sharpen ourselves, respect capabilities of our connective and affective diversity, and make better decisions for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Chairman, as Deputy Chairperson of the Education GPC, my colleagues and I remain fully committed to ensuring Singaporeans have access to education at every stage of life, including pathways beyond the conventional routes we have long accepted.
As our nation intensifies efforts in AI education and promotes lifelong learning, we must ensure the right infrastructure supports every keen learner, regardless of their starting point. This is about building futures, not just acquiring knowledge.
From feedback in my constituency in Woodgrove, during every ITE and Polytechnic application period, many qualified residents are disappointed when their preferred courses are oversubscribed, even when their results actually meet the cut-off. What plans exist to increase openings for working adults balancing careers and family as well? I urge a comprehensive review of capacity to ensure no qualified student is left on the sidelines.
As one of the Members of Parliament for Marsiling-Yew Tee Group Representation Constituency (GRC), I have previously raised in this House the proposal for a new ITE in the North. This could double as a dedicated lifelong training centre to serve the growing population in the region. It could partner closely with Republic Polytechnic for a seamless "through-train" programme, allowing smooth progression from foundational to advanced skills. It could also collaborate with corporates in the nearby JTC industrial areas, enabling learners to apply skills directly on the job, secure employment upon graduation, or return easily for upskilling. Such a facility would enhance access to practical, skills-based education, bridge gaps, and foster a stronger culture of continuous growth.
Infrastructure alone is insufficient. We need holistic programmes to reach those who might otherwise fall through the cracks. I therefore call for deeper collaboration with initiatives such as the YMCA's Vocational and Soft Skills Programme, which equips out-of-school youth and youths-at-risk with job competencies and vocational skills to rebuild their confidence. Many of those young children feel lost due to negative peer influences or challenging family backgrounds. Normalising and expanding such programmes align closely with the Prime Minister's vision: every Singaporean, regardless of starting point, deserves a fair chance to pursue their aspirations and realise their full potential.
To make these pathways truly inclusive, education financing must keep pace. I urge for a review and broadening of the Central Provident Fund Education Loan Scheme and Tuition Fee Loan to cover a wider range of courses – vocational trades, the arts and innovative fields like AI and sustainability. More banks should also offer similar support. This is an investment in our people's talents, ensuring no dream is deferred due to financial barriers. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To support the implementation of the SkillsFuture initiative, the People's Association (PA) has been offering SkillsFuture@PA courses at various Community Clubs (CCs) since 2016. This programme has been in place for nearly 10 years now. I would like to ask: has the number of courses offered, as well as the number of participating CCs, been gradually increasing? Which age group makes up the majority of participants?
To encourage more Singaporeans to utilise their SkillsFuture training credits, I hope that SkillsFuture@PA programme can be further expanded. In addition to CCs, it could also extend to running courses at the Residents' Network Centres. This would provide greater convenience and companionship for seniors and those with mobility issues, motivating them to sign up and participate.
(In English): Chairman, educating Singaporeans develops our only natural resource – our people. Broadening education paths is not a luxury. It is essential for Singapore's resilient future. By expanding capacity, building targeted facilities, partnering with industries and community programmes, and reforming finances, we can make lifelong learning the norm, not the exception. Let us commit to this today, for the sake of our youths, our workers, our nation.
Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore has made strong progress in reshaping how we view skills, applied learning and multiple pathways to success. The ITE today is a launchpad for many young Singaporeans to build meaningful careers. The next phase, however, is not only access but progression across a lifetime. If lifelong learning is to work, progression must be legible. I think of one Singaporean I know, Mr Abu Bakar Siddiq, who started out in the Normal (Academic) stream, went on to ITE, polytechnic to pursue engineering, and then went to work, got sponsored for his degree and has now completed his masters. His story shows that your starting point does not determine the finishing line and that progress must be open.
Mr Chairman, Sir, the Work-Study Diploma is a strong model for the future of our learning. As we strengthen this pathway, I have three questions for the Minister.
Second, can the Minister update how MOE will give greater formal weight to workplace proven competencies with assessments that are rigorous and recognised across employers?
Third, will the Minister consider piloting a structured conditional university pathway for top performing ITE and work study learners anchored on sustained workplace achievement and continued upgrading without implying that university is the only outcome?
Mr Chairman, Sir, a future ready education system is not one that sorts students early, but one that keeps doors open throughout life. If every pathway can lead forward, more Singaporeans will keep going further.
I declare my interest as the senior executive of an educational institute that trains and certifies adult educators for SkillsFuture courses.
The lifelong learning ecosystem in Singapore has transformed over the past 11 years since the launch of the SkillsFuture movement. The efforts of SkillsFuture Singapore and its partners have made training and reskilling affordable, accessible and of high quality, catering to the diverse needs of learners.
Adult educators are critical to the quality of CET, just as our school teachers ensure the quality of education in our schools. At the Budget debate last year, I recall the hon Member Mr Xie Yao Quan spoke about the importance of the professional development and recognition of adult educators. From April this year, adult educators who teach SkillsFuture-funded courses must be on the National Adult Educator Registry and renew their registration every two years by clocking minimum practice hours as well as taking up continuing professional development. This public registry will support the professional development of adult educators and boost confidence in our CET system.
Beyond setting minimum standards, we must also encourage and recognise excellence within the adult educator profession. The Institute for Adult Learning, where I am from, will be inducting more Adult Education Fellows, recognising them as leading educators in their respective fields who can inspire other adult educators and share their expertise with the professional community.
I believe we can do more. Just as the President’s Award for Teachers recognises outstanding teachers who inspire their students and peers through innovative teaching methods and a commitment to lifelong learning, would the Ministry consider a President’s Award for Adult Educators as well? This would put adult educators, as the custodians of lifelong learning, on par with the teaching profession in terms of recognition.
In this era of rapidly changing job and skills requirements, adult educators play a key role in motivating and inspiring adult learners to keep learning and acquiring new skills. Adult educators need to innovate in their teaching and facilitation methods, based on the latest research in adult learning, and using AI and new digital tools where appropriate. They have to be exemplars of adult learning themselves. I believe that as we rebalance our focus between pre-employment training and CET, it is timely to strengthen our recognition of adult educators.
Mr David Hoe. You can take your two cuts together, please.
Thank you. Chairman, I want to speak about affiliation and the balance that MOE must strike between school identity, diverse learning needs and fairness. The mechanism of school affiliation and parents' alumni affiliation has been long part of our education landscape. They help to sustain school ethos, community, and also tradition. Many alumni continue to contribute meaningfully back to schools and this spirit should be preserved.
But in today's context, MOE should also assess whether affiliation now might have resulted in unintended consequences. Does it confer disproportionate advantage to some, weakened perception of fairness, meritocracy and social mixing? One practical issue is how large cut-off points gap linked to affiliation can translate into different academic readiness in a classroom, and this makes targeted teaching harder and increase preparation burden on teachers.
Let me illustrate this disparity. The cut-off point between an affiliated student and a non-affiliated Primary 6 can be very large. In my research, I found that for one popular school in 2025, non-affiliated cut-off point, the student from non-affiliated school was 10, and affiliated cut-off point is 20. A 10-point difference, not a 10-mark difference.
This is not an isolated case, because several schools have similar wide affiliation related cut-off points gaps. This matters, because in our current AL system, some bands cover a wide range of marks. For example, AL 6 spans between 45 marks and 64 marks, and AL 5, 65 to 74 marks. So, a one point cut-off point difference can represent a large spread in terms of academic readiness, what more a 10-point gap? This can significantly widen the range of learners' profile in the same subject classroom. This will in turn cause increased differentiation demands and make classroom and curriculum planning more complex, even as we move to have implemented our full subject-based banding (FSBB). While FSBB helps with subject level grouping, it cannot remove the wide difference in readiness within a subject class.
A second issue is what affiliation incentives to upstream. See, large affiliation advantages can fuel unhealthy primary school chasing earlier. A possible unintended consequence is families make primary school choice not really based on values, culture or programmes, but because they are trying to secure an easier affiliated school pathway for a good secondary school later. Over time, this can amplify inequalities, because the ability to move house, arrange childcare, mobilise alumni connection is not evenly distributed among the population. So, I would encourage MOE to consider whether the current school affiliation mechanism for entry to secondary school needs to be reviewed.
Well, I have some suggestions in this regard. Perhaps MOE can consider either capping the maximum difference between affiliated and non-affiliated cut-off points to two to three points, together with a review with the mark range within each of the AL bands to accurately reflect students' readiness, or maybe to remove affiliation cut-off points completely.
To be clear, the goal here is not to abolish school identity, but to ensure that identity does not come at a cost of public confidence in fairness or unintentionally weakening social mixing. This links to the Primary 1 admission as well, especially under Phase 2A, which gives priority to parents who are alumni of the school. MOE has to balance legitimate community ties with the principle that schools should remain inclusive.
To remain inclusive, I wonder could MOE consider more protected spaces for non-alumni students in oversubscribed schools so that primary school choice is not driven by structural advantage from networks or resources.
Chairman, I appreciate MOE's effort to broaden pathways and enable our students to make better career choices, such as having educational career counsellors in our schools. This is important because it helps our students and also our young adults to decide what to pursue.
However, I think more can be done with regard to this, so that we can see large and more meaningful change, especially for those who have fewer networks.
This cut is with regard to internship, externship, learning journeys and structured career exposure.
Today, many of these opportunities exist, but access is uneven. For instance, a better resourced school, especially our independent secondary schools, often have stronger alumni networks, more established industry relationships, greater capacity to organise their visits, talks or attachment.
In a recent Clementi community run, I spoke to a student who shared with me that his school very soon, about in one week's time, they will have a sabbatical week for secondary four cohort. These students can choose from a range of different programmes to gain exposure beyond classroom. And he also shared with me his senior, Year Five, previously, just did an internship during school breaks.
You see, as a former educator, I understand his worldview, but I also know this is not true for most of our secondary schools in Singapore. For students from less resourced or disadvantaged background, such opportunities to discover their interest matters even more, because if you come from a family without strong professional networks, you cannot easily borrow career insights from your parents or friends or find informal internships through social connections, because what you can see is what you can imagine and what you can imagine shapes what you dare to pursue.
So, structured exposure if done well, becomes an equaliser, because it substitutes for who you know and it helps students to build confidence, aspirations and a clearer sense of fit. So, I urge MOE to consider these three moves.
First, to expand and better standardise access to career exposure across schools. This includes internship, externship, where feasible, but also shorter and more scalable formats, such as our learning journeys, workplace visits, shadowing days and structured career day with real job content. The aim is to ensure the experiences do not sit within some schools, but they are made available throughout our system, especially our non-IP schools and less resourced educational institution.
Second, MOE should also consider a better structuring these experiences in line with our priority sectors or industry, where Singapore is trying to build our capabilities. We can work with industry partners and school leaders to curate such experiences. Such experiences should not be one off but should be a sustained exposure that helps students to understand what the nature of the work is like, what kind of skills is required, what pathways exist.
Third, for such programmes, priority should be given to those who will gain the most. If we believe in equity, we must design a first access for students who have fewer resources or come from disadvantaged background. We should remove practical barriers in this regard. For example, it should be simpler sign-up, transportation support and if there is a need, for a small allowance, so that participation does not depend on the student's financial or family situation. And beyond SkillsFuture course, we should also scale this at adults as well for short learning journeys for adults. This will give our adults a more realistic view.
Chairman, resilience should not depend on which school a child attends. While initiatives exist, implementation varies. In some schools, resilience skills, peer systems and early detection are embedded. In others, they depend heavily on local bandwidth and priorities. If resilience is foundational, certain elements must be guaranteed nationally. High-performing systems already do this.
Finland embeds well-being as a formal objective in its national curriculum. Denmark mandates a weekly class, Klassens Tid, dedicated to emotional dialogue and conflict resolution. Japan's Tokkatsu, part of its national curriculum, systematically develops social responsibility and emotional regulation. These are not optional add-ons, but structured expectations.
I therefore propose a National School Mental Well-Being Charter. The principle is clear: centralise standards and accountability, decentralise delivery and innovation.
First, a national baseline for resilience education: a minimum annual allocation within Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) for mental health literacy and coping skills; defined developmental competencies at key stages; central vetting of external providers.
Second, a standardised well-being framework. Denmark uses national digital well-being audits to systematically track student mood and welfare trends. Singapore can adopt a nationally validated annual instrument measuring belonging, coping confidence and psychological safety, used for internal improvement, not public ranking.
Third, clear support benchmarks. Finland's three-tiered support model ensures timely intervention for students who need more help. Our Charter should define timelines for counsellor access, minimum training and supervision standards for peer supporters, structured referral pathways.
Accreditation should be tiered and developmental, recognising capability-building rather than compliance. This is feasible. CCE exists. Surveys exist. Peer systems exist. Counsellors are deployed.
The Charter aligns these under clear national guardrails. International evidence shows resilience improves when it is embedded, measured and systematised. Without baseline guarantees, outcomes remain uneven. With structured standards, every student receives consistent support regardless of school.
Sir, in my Budget debate, I spoke about the power of the arts in promoting mental well-being. The Minister has outlined efforts to support disadvantaged students, nurture human-centric qualities in the age of AI and refresh the CCE curriculum. The arts are a natural complement.
In 2023, the Singapore Symphony Orchestra brought 200 students to a concert. Half had never attended one; a third lived in rental or smaller flats. Students reported a 13% improvement in well-being, a 17% rise in positive emotions and a 41% drop in negative emotions and a stronger social connection, all from a single concert!
If one shared arts experience can do this, imagine what sustained engagement could achieve for bullying prevention, socio-emotional development and social mixing. The arts also engage kinesthetic learners, foster creativity and strengthen problem-solving. This is not about adding to teachers' burdens but equipping them with trained partners.
I saw this firsthand at a Playback Theatre session by the Singapore Drama Educators Association, where audience members share real experiences of bullying and trained facilitators play them back through improvised performance. The practitioners proposed this as an avenue to address bullying by building empathy and supporting restorative approaches. They stand ready to partner schools.
I would like to ask the Minister: will MOE commission a study on how the arts affect student mental well-being? Second, will MOE partner arts practitioners to address bullying and build socio-emotional competencies in schools?
As Singaporean artist Tan Swie Hian said, "Art is not just a reflection of life; it is a catalyst for change". Our children are works of art themselves who can be powerful catalysts of change. By bringing the arts into education, we can help our students grow not just academically, but as empathetic, resilient and creative individuals.
Sir, on supporting students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in our mainstream schools and in special education (SPED) schools, we have made real progress in the space. Big thanks to MOE, partner disability agencies and staff.
But the numbers being diagnosed and the demands are increasing and our support models must grow stronger.
First, on mainstream schools, from access to consistent quality. Over the past decade, MOE has strengthened in-school capabilities. SEN officers have increased from about 450 in 2017 to about 750 by 2024. Primary schools now run structured programmes, such as School-based Dyslexia Remediation, Circle of Friends peer support, and the TRANsition Support for InTegration (TRANSIT) initiative. These are serious investments. But two areas need attention in the mainstream schools setting.
First, inclusion quality remains uneven. Parents still report differences in early identification, teacher confidence and consistency of support across schools. We need a clearer national tiered framework that defines what every classroom teacher must be able to do, what school-based specialists provide and what requires multi-disciplinary intervention including for mental wellness. Support should not depend on which school a child happens to enter.
Second, life skills must be intentionally taught. For many SEN students in mainstream settings, academic access alone is not enough. Executive functioning, self-advocacy, emotional regulation, work habits and digital responsibility and so on must be systematically embedded, not treated as optional add-ons. These are foundational for lifelong learning and employability. Not including them bears negative consequences.
Next on special schools, expanding the capacity and reimagining their purpose. On the SPED side, much more support had been put in. Capacity will increase from 8,300 in 2024, to 10,000 places by 2030. Demand and complexity continue to rise.
First, manpower is the tightest bottleneck. If we build new schools without enlarging the workforce, we create a tug-of-war. SPED competes with mainstream. Mainstream competes with SPED. Both compete with the private sector.
We need a deliberate manpower strategy: expand sponsored training pipelines for SPED educators and allied professionals, scale structured mid-career conversion pathways, allow for foreign manpower to supplement the workforce, deploy regional multidisciplinary teams serving classes of schools, pace spread staff competitively, educators, speech pathologies, therapies and coaches. Retention is capacity.
Second, we must address the post-SPED cliff. Beyond expansion, we must ask: what should a SPED school of the future look like? It should adopt a lifelong learning model integrating academic foundations with work readiness and vocational exposure, life skills for independent and dignified living, social-emotional growth and community participation and AI tools that actively address the rapidly changing living and working landscape.
SPED schools must be launchpads for adulthood, not endpoints. No young person should thrive for years in our SPED schools to face then a drop into uncertainty. That cliff is for ours to level.
Mr Chairman, I would like to state my interest in this matter as a psychologist, special educator and also an academic with practice experience and research interest in the needs of students with SEN.
It was reported in the 2024 Disability Trends Report that there were, as of 2023, about 36,000 students with SEN in Singapore schools. Of these, about 80% or close to 29,000 attend mainstream schools, which represents a rise from the 27,000 in 2022. I would like to focus, today, on this group of students.
Like the hon Member Ms Denise Phua, I would like to applaud the Ministry's significant investments, over the past decade, in differentiated provision of support across the education system. This has enabled more students with SEN to access educational pathways suited to their profiles of needs.
Mainstream schools now provide students with SEN access to the national curriculum as well as with support in the form of teachers trained in SEN, SEN Officers, and from the multi-tiered system of support. Within this context, students with SEN not only benefit from the challenge from access to the national curriculum but they also have the opportunity to learn alongside their peers.
Students with SEN thrive in mainstream environments when necessary supports are in place. However, there are some students with SEN who are able to engage with aspects of the national curriculum, but whose consistent participation in classroom instruction depends on supports that are not always available within the school environment. These may take the form of additional services targeting areas like learning, executive functions social skills, as well as emotional and behavioral regulation.
When such support is not consistently available, the students' ability to participate in classroom instruction and progress within the national curriculum may become affected. This may impact, in the short term, engagement, learning and social interaction of such students. But it may also affect motivation and identity over time as well as potentially longer-term consequences on employability and participation within society.
Access to such supports may depend on availability, cost and coordination across settings, which can be within hospitals, social service agencies or private providers. In such circumstances, the responsibility for sustaining access to learning may shift from institutional arrangements within schools to the capacity of individual families to coordinate supports across educational, healthcare and social service settings.
I had highlighted during my earlier Budget speech about the contribution of meaningful participation and having a voice in decision-making within a cohesive society. I would hence like to ask the Minister if the Government could share how classroom instruction is adapted for students who need supports that may not be consistently available within mainstream schools and how students with SEN and their families are involved in shaping the type of supports they receive in mainstream schools.
Sir, the question I seek to raise today is not whether we should invest in such provision of support for students with SEN. I believe we already have. It is about how continuity of meaningful participation in mainstream schools is sustained for students with SEN with support needs that are not consistently available within the school environment.
I look forward to the Minister's clarification on this matter.
Chairman, as inclusion deepens in our mainstream schools, we must ensure that support arrives early enough and scales quickly enough to ease pressure in the classroom.
In Primary 1, teachers are not only teaching literacy and numeracy. They are helping children learn how to sit still, sustain attention, regulate impulses and transition between tasks. When several students in one class struggle with these foundational skills, the teacher spends much of the lesson managing behaviour. Instructional time shrinks. Strain builds for teachers and for students.
MOE already conducts systematic screening for literacy and numeracy at Primary 1 and SEN officers support teachers in identifying social-behavioural difficulties. Behavioural identification, however, is largely supported through observation and monitoring over time.
I propose that we strengthen this process by incorporating structured executive-function indicators into the existing Primary 1 screening framework. A short, cohort-wide baseline around 30 to 45 minutes could provide objective data on learning readiness skills such as attention regulation, working memory and impulse control.
This is not diagnostic. It does not label children. It strengthens early planning. It allows schools to identify early on which cohorts may require heavier classroom support before strain accumulates. Importantly, this information could be linked to calibrated manpower deployment.
Where a Primary 1 cohort shows higher-than-usual support needs, temporary para-educator or co-teaching support could be deployed earlier rather than after prolonged escalation. And where support density within a class is particularly high, flexibility in class composition or size should be considered. There is no single ideal class number. What matters is whether the structure of the class matches the needs within it.
When early intervention is effective, behavioural and learning gaps often narrow. Support intensity reduces as students mature and manpower can then be redeployed to incoming cohorts. In this way, we move from reactive escalation to early calibration. This approach lightens teacher workload, reduces cumulative strain across levels and ensures that children receive timely support during their most formative years.
If we detect early and deploy early, we support our teachers, strengthen student outcomes and give parents confidence that inclusion remains both compassionate and workable.
Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Bilingualism is central to Singapore's identity, yet gaps remain. Some students struggle with both English and their mother tongue and interest in mother tongue languages is waning.
I speak from personal experience as a former Language Elective Programme (Chinese) student. I am proud to enjoy my mother yongue. Our identity as bilingual Singaporeans is special. Bilingualism should not be a policy, it should be a skill students embrace with confidence and pride.
Yet mastering two languages is no easy feat. Too often, it is seen as an exam to pass and a source of stress rather than a living language. Has our current policy kept pace? How can we reignite interest? I ask whether MOE will provide greater support for parents to immerse young children at home and leverage digital platforms to make learning engaging. We need targeted support for weaker learners, stronger teacher training and curricula that make languages relevant and engaging.
Assessments should reward practical use, not just exam results. Only then can bilingualism become a lifelong skill, empowering our students and sustaining our cultural heritage.
Mr Chairman, Sir, bilingualism today cannot be sustained by schools alone. Languages weaken not when they are difficult to learn, but when they are no longer lived outside the classroom. If we want mother tongue proficiency to be sustained, we must continually enrich the language environment so that children here use and enjoy the language in everyday settings. This is why the next phase of bilingualism must be a whole-of-community effort.
First, we can consider catalytic micro grants for community-led bilingual initiatives – small, simple and outcome-focused – to support storytelling sessions, reading circles, drama and inter-generational activities.
Second, we should support regular community language spaces, for example, in libraries, community clubs or neighbourhood nodes, so that language use becomes a routine, not just an occasional festival.
Third, let us strengthen parent enablement with simple toolkits and nudges that help families use mother tongue at home in practical ways, at meals, during routines and in shared activities. Because bilingualism is not only taught in schools, it is sustained in communities.
Mr Chairman, Sir, a cut on bilingualism will not be complete without me speaking in my mother tongue. In Tamil, please.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Why do we refer to mother tongue as mother tongue? When we mention "mother", what we recall are love, support and nurturing. These beautiful feelings have to be refreshed in our hearts as we speak in our mother tongue. Therefore, we cannot teach mother tongue in schools alone. This is a joint community effort. Hence, let us come together and expound the motherliness of our mother tongue. Long live, mother tongues.
PAPERCUTS